Climate change and American Energy

Gallipoli

Graduate Assistant
Aug 20, 2017
3,486
1,846
113
The Doghouse

Gallipoli

Graduate Assistant
Aug 20, 2017
3,486
1,846
113
The Doghouse
Great. Biden has sold oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserves to China and other foreign countries. What an idiot.

 

Gallipoli

Graduate Assistant
Aug 20, 2017
3,486
1,846
113
The Doghouse
Old Joe and his administration understand they need to find oil and gas somewhere, that is why they are begging Saudi Arabia, Iran and Venezuela for more oil...

"Unfathomably, his administration continues its relentless attacks on domestic oil production. More than one million acres of land in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico have been removed from oil and gas production. Access in the Atlantic and Pacific have been reduced to nothing. Of the federal land available for exploration, only 20 percent has been made available. Meanwhile, Biden’s agencies from the Securities and Exchange Commission to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission have issued new guidelines based on his unwavering commitment to the climate change agenda.

The multiple, clear signals coming from Washington, DC have succeeded: American oil and gas production is down and not rebounding anytime soon."

 

Gallipoli

Graduate Assistant
Aug 20, 2017
3,486
1,846
113
The Doghouse
Here you go, Spiderwiz. I would start by reversing every single climate change initiative instituted by Obama and Biden. I would invoke the Defense Production Act to enhance and grow domestic oil and gas production. I would set up permanent LNG terminals up and down the east coast to supply Europe with Liquified Natural Gas.
 
Last edited:

Gallipoli

Graduate Assistant
Aug 20, 2017
3,486
1,846
113
The Doghouse
Germany is the model for the US transition to renewable energy.
However in Germany "nobody bothered to figure out how much energy storage would be needed to back up these intermittent technologies and keep the grid functioning 24/365 in the absence of fossil fuels and nuclear. Now Germany has an excess of wind and solar facilities that, however, are incapable of providing reliable power on their own; and it has inadequate back-up other than natural gas from Russia. Thus Germany is facing an imminent energy disaster."

 

KE Spider

Team Manager
Mar 8, 2010
1,713
2,660
113
Solar and wind have an important supporting role, but cannot currently be the primary sources of energy because they are inherently unreliable sources. The nut of storing electricity has not been solved. It would be a game changer, but until then barring natural gas pipelines and exploration/usage will bear bitter fruit for the average Joe.

The Green New Deal as presently structured is really the Green Raw Deal for most.
 

urfan1

Moderator
Moderator
Jan 9, 2003
18,156
4,282
113
Battery storage facilities are really just beginning, once in place wind and solar will become more reliable.
 
Aug 19, 2003
1,262
404
83
Check with Texas residents about the joke with wind and solar fuel last winter, another progressive lie.
 

KE Spider

Team Manager
Mar 8, 2010
1,713
2,660
113
As is the Green New Deal as currently structured. There is going to be hell to pay for the average citizen. Will exacerbate income inequality massively.
 

Gallipoli

Graduate Assistant
Aug 20, 2017
3,486
1,846
113
The Doghouse
Battery storage facilities are really just beginning, once in place wind and solar will become more reliable.
Within the next 100 years, there will never be enough storage from renewables to support a modern industrial economy. Even then the green fascists will never allow American mining and production. That means greater reliance on and subservience to China. The choice: clean energy from America or dirty energy from our enemies.
 

Gallipoli

Graduate Assistant
Aug 20, 2017
3,486
1,846
113
The Doghouse
Battery storage facilities are really just beginning, once in place wind and solar will become more reliable.
"The single most astounding universal failure of all jurisdictions pursuing Net Zero is the failure to pursue any sort of working prototype or demonstration project of a Net Zero electricity system before committing the entire jurisdiction to the project on the basis of a blank check to be paid by the taxpayers and ratepayers..."

 

urfan1

Moderator
Moderator
Jan 9, 2003
18,156
4,282
113
G, I have worked with a number of actual and potential solar and battery projects. your comments tell me you have little understanding of what is actually happening around the world.
 

Gallipoli

Graduate Assistant
Aug 20, 2017
3,486
1,846
113
The Doghouse
G, I have worked with a number of actual and potential solar and battery projects. your comments tell me you have little understanding of what is actually happening around the world.
Pardon my previous hyperbole. But Proof?
 
Last edited:

Gallipoli

Graduate Assistant
Aug 20, 2017
3,486
1,846
113
The Doghouse
Prove that batteries can store sufficient power to support an industrial society when the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow. How many batteries will be required? Also, prove this can even be sourced somewhere beside communist China.

You cannot support an economy on renewables. It is not even close.

"In those jurisdictions that have succeeded in getting generation from renewables up to as high as about 30% of their total electricity supply, the result has been an approximate tripling in the price of electricity for their consumers....

The cost of such batteries sufficient to power a jurisdiction of millions of people is enormous, and quickly comes to be the dominant cost of the system. Relatively simple calculations of the cost of batteries sufficient to get through a year for a modern industrialized area show that this cost would imply an increase in the price of electricity by a factor of some 15 or 20, or perhaps even more.

The burden of such increasing prices for electricity would fall most heavily on poor and low-income people."

 

Gallipoli

Graduate Assistant
Aug 20, 2017
3,486
1,846
113
The Doghouse
Prove this analysis is incorrect.

"The reason that increasing renewable generation leads to accelerating consumer prices is that an electrical grid must operate with one hundred percent reliability on a 24/7/365 basis. A reliable grid requires a very close match between power supplied and power demanded on a minute-by-minute, and even a fraction of second, basis. But wind and solar sources experience large, unpredictable, and often sudden swings in the power that they supply. Therefore, in a grid using large amounts of power from wind and solar sources, additional costly elements must be added to the system to even out the supply and always match it to the demand. These additional elements are what bring about the increased costs and thus increased consumer prices:

[T]here will be substantial times when no such power is available (e.g., calm nights). Therefore, all or nearly all pre-existing fossil fuel capacity must be maintained, even though some of it may be idle much of the time. Although the fuel cost of the renewables is zero, the operator must pay the capital cost of two overlapping and duplicative systems to the extent of the renewable capacity."

 

Gallipoli

Graduate Assistant
Aug 20, 2017
3,486
1,846
113
The Doghouse
It is foolish to think renewables can provide the power to support an economy. Every assertion is of future benefit and capabilities in power generation and storage. These are assertions as uncertain as the wind. A will of the wisp.
 

KE Spider

Team Manager
Mar 8, 2010
1,713
2,660
113
Prove this analysis is incorrect.

"The reason that increasing renewable generation leads to accelerating consumer prices is that an electrical grid must operate with one hundred percent reliability on a 24/7/365 basis. A reliable grid requires a very close match between power supplied and power demanded on a minute-by-minute, and even a fraction of second, basis. But wind and solar sources experience large, unpredictable, and often sudden swings in the power that they supply. Therefore, in a grid using large amounts of power from wind and solar sources, additional costly elements must be added to the system to even out the supply and always match it to the demand. These additional elements are what bring about the increased costs and thus increased consumer prices:

[T]here will be substantial times when no such power is available (e.g., calm nights). Therefore, all or nearly all pre-existing fossil fuel capacity must be maintained, even though some of it may be idle much of the time. Although the fuel cost of the renewables is zero, the operator must pay the capital cost of two overlapping and duplicative systems to the extent of the renewable capacity."

BINGO! Solar and wind as unreliable energy sources require generation redundancy from fossil fuels to maintain a stable grid. This redundancy necessitates significant increases in power rates, disproportionately impacting the poor.

Battery storage is the hope for the future, but current technology is not remotely close to what will be needed to go total renewable anytime soon. The Greens are simply trying to go too far, too fast. Natural gas is the cleanest bridge to a greener grid, but the Greens deny this too. They are delusional. Denying hard facts.
 
Last edited:

Gallipoli

Graduate Assistant
Aug 20, 2017
3,486
1,846
113
The Doghouse
Prove this analysis is incorrect.

"The reason that increasing renewable generation leads to accelerating consumer prices is that an electrical grid must operate with one hundred percent reliability on a 24/7/365 basis. A reliable grid requires a very close match between power supplied and power demanded on a minute-by-minute, and even a fraction of second, basis. But wind and solar sources experience large, unpredictable, and often sudden swings in the power that they supply. Therefore, in a grid using large amounts of power from wind and solar sources, additional costly elements must be added to the system to even out the supply and always match it to the demand. These additional elements are what bring about the increased costs and thus increased consumer prices:

[T]here will be substantial times when no such power is available (e.g., calm nights). Therefore, all or nearly all pre-existing fossil fuel capacity must be maintained, even though some of it may be idle much of the time. Although the fuel cost of the renewables is zero, the operator must pay the capital cost of two overlapping and duplicative systems to the extent of the renewable capacity."

Still waiting...
 

KE Spider

Team Manager
Mar 8, 2010
1,713
2,660
113
BINGO! Solar and wind as unreliable energy sources require generation redundancy from fossil fuels to maintain a stable grid. This redundancy necessitates significant increases in power rates, disproportionately impacting the poor.

Battery storage is the hope for the future, but current technology is not remotely close to what will be needed to go total renewable anytime soon. The Greens are simply trying to go too far, too fast. Natural gas is the cleanest bridge to a greener grid, but the Greens deny this too. They are delusional. Denying hard facts.
Will add....batteries are near the top in toxic, environmentally harmful heavy metal pollutants. Disposal is a huge problem like spent nuclear fuel rods.

All for Green energy, but the current tact has not been well thought through by the clamoring Greens. Need to move forward at a more measured pace that doesn't wreck the economy and impoverish the middle class and down.

Natural gas, as the least harmful fossil fuel, should be a no brainer as the bridge fuel to a Greener tomorrow, yet the Greens are hell bent against it, repeatedly blocking pipelines. Short sighted and all but guaranteed to cause skyrocketing energy prices and an unreliable energy grid.

Slow down. We aren't going to melt in 10 years. Be reasonable.

BTW: There is no where near the generating capacity to support a wholesale shift to EV by the masses anytime soon.
 
Last edited:

Gallipoli

Graduate Assistant
Aug 20, 2017
3,486
1,846
113
The Doghouse
Will add....batteries are near the top in toxic, environmentally harmful heavy metal pollutants. Disposal is a huge problem like spend nuclear fuel rods.

All for Green energy, but the current tact has not been well thought through by the clamoring Greens. Need to move forward at a more measured pace that doesn't wreck the economy and impoverish the middle class and down.

Natural gas, as the least harmful fossil fuel, should be a no brainer as the bridge fuel to a Greener tomorrow, yet the Greens are hell bent against it, repeatedly blocking pipelines. Short sighted and all but guaranteed to cause skyrocketing energy prices and an unreliable energy grid.

Slow down. We aren't going to melt in 10 years. Be reasonable.

BTW: There is no where near the generating capacity to support a wholesale shift to EV by the masses anytime soon.
Outstanding analysis. In addition the greenies fail to acknowledge how toxic solar panels are. Once the panels fail, they will have to be disposed of. "The toxic chemicals in solar panels include cadmium telluride, copper indium selenide, cadmium gallium (di)selenide, copper indium gallium (di)selenide, hexafluoroethane, lead, and polyvinyl fluoride. Silicon tetrachloride, a byproduct of producing crystalline silicon, is also highly toxic."

 
Last edited:

Gallipoli

Graduate Assistant
Aug 20, 2017
3,486
1,846
113
The Doghouse
The Greens block pipelines because they represent permanent infrastructure. They spent billions to block Virginia Power's Atlantic Coast Pipeline. Which would have easily supplanted Russia's natural gas supply to Europe.
 

KE Spider

Team Manager
Mar 8, 2010
1,713
2,660
113
Blocking the ACP was simply braindead. Wild eyed fervor over dispassionate reason. Sad and the public will pay dearly for it. The grid is destined to become increasingly wobbly under current policy.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: Gallipoli

KE Spider

Team Manager
Mar 8, 2010
1,713
2,660
113
She's nutty and there are plenty on the other side of the aisle too. Neither party has a monopoly.

Her comments have little to do with the facts I threw out for consideration though.

Without breakthrough battery technology in the immediate future, the grid will become significantly more expensive to maintain and less reliable the faster we transition to unreliable energy sources. Don't believe this is in dispute among energy experts.
 

Gallipoli

Graduate Assistant
Aug 20, 2017
3,486
1,846
113
The Doghouse
The UK is poised to experience serious outages and skyrocketing utility rates, because they shallowed the green dream. Rates are pushing as many as one-third of Brits into poverty.

"Reports this week point to spiraling costs for households and businesses this winter, pushing millions of Britons closer to poverty. It’s a steep price for climate alarmism....

Households are likely to see the average bill for electricity and natural gas climb to £4,400 ($5,370) a year in the first half of 2023, according to a report this week from Cornwall Insight, a consulting firm. This is after the regulatory price cap shot up 54% to about £2,000 in April with another 40%-plus increase due in October and further increases after that.

Britain’s median income after direct taxes is £31,400. Skyrocketing fuel prices could push 10.5 million households, or one-third, into fuel poverty next year, says the End Fuel Poverty Coalition. Fuel poverty is when energy costs drag household disposable income below the government’s official poverty line."

 

KE Spider

Team Manager
Mar 8, 2010
1,713
2,660
113
Totally foreseeable for anyone following the facts. Totally foreseeable.

Share a Green vision, but must be reasonable in how we get there. This headlong, virtue signaling rush to a Green grid has serious factual deficiencies. Technology does not currently exist to support a totally green grid or close to it by 2030 (the goal for many countries) absent some amazing storage breakthrough.

Encourage folks to Google Mark Christie, a FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) Commissioner and a former Commissioner at the Virginia State Corporation Commission for 17 years. Brilliant mind, a friend, and extremely insightful on energy issues. A public servant whose judgment you can always trust bc he always does his homework.

Sorry to repeat myself (even though it is a hallowed tradition on our board), but this issue is near and dear to my heart. Hear uninformed folks make the most outlandish assertions that will have dire consequences for the Average Joe. Troubles me greatly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gallipoli

Gallipoli

Graduate Assistant
Aug 20, 2017
3,486
1,846
113
The Doghouse
Totally foreseeable for anyone following the facts. Totally foreseeable.

Sorry to repeat myself (even though it is a hallowed tradition on our board), but this issue is near and dear to my heart. Hear uninformed folks make the most outlandish assertions that will have dire consequences for the Average Joe. Troubles me greatly.
Great points. All I hear are crickets. Much of the funding of the worldwide green lobby, including the US, comes from Russia and China. One should be cynical of these head long efforts to destroy our economy for an idea that is at least 50 to 100 years away.

Please defeat the analysis.
 

Gallipoli

Graduate Assistant
Aug 20, 2017
3,486
1,846
113
The Doghouse
Totally foreseeable for anyone following the facts. Totally foreseeable.

Share a Green vision, but must be reasonable in how we get there. This headlong, virtue signaling rush to a Green grid has serious factual deficiencies. Technology does not currently exist to support a totally green grid or close to it by 2030 (the goal for many countries) absent some amazing storage breakthrough.

Encourage folks to Google Mark Christie, a FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) Commissioner and a former Commissioner at the Virginia State Corporation Commission for 17 years. Brilliant mind, a friend, and extremely insightful on energy issues. A public servant whose judgment you can always trust bc he always does his homework.

Sorry to repeat myself (even though it is a hallowed tradition on our board), but this issue is near and dear to my heart. Hear uninformed folks make the most outlandish assertions that will have dire consequences for the Average Joe. Troubles me greatly.
KE, take a look at this website. https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/
This guy, Francis Merton, is working on a comprehensive analysis of climate policy and the options available to our country. He plans to publicize it in September.

Meanwhile, read this well written article.


He is sponsoring a debate on 8/15 in Manhattan.

Upcoming Event of Interest:

The Soho Forum will hold a debate on August 15, 2022 on the proposition: “Climate Science compels us to make large and rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.”

It is being live streamed
 

Gallipoli

Graduate Assistant
Aug 20, 2017
3,486
1,846
113
The Doghouse
The Brits are starting to get it... renewables cannot sustain an economy because there are no batteries able to store energy.

"Running electricity grids on solar and wind base loads will require technological breakthroughs on storage. It is impossible to plan with any confidence what progress will have materialised....

Unpalatable as this reality is for climate and ecological reasons, world economic growth still requires fossil fuel production. Without more investment and exploration, there is unlikely to be sufficient supply."

 
  • Like
Reactions: KE Spider

KE Spider

Team Manager
Mar 8, 2010
1,713
2,660
113
The Brits are starting to get it... renewables cannot sustain an economy because there are no batteries able to store energy.

"Running electricity grids on solar and wind base loads will require technological breakthroughs on storage. It is impossible to plan with any confidence what progress will have materialised....

Unpalatable as this reality is for climate and ecological reasons, world economic growth still requires fossil fuel production. Without more investment and exploration, there is unlikely to be sufficient supply."

Thank you! For anyone seriously following the science, this is self evident. Non-disputable fact based on current technology. The Green mania has a promising future, but it ain't right now. To say otherwise is to deny current science. Storage is in its infancy. Weak storage technology based on unreliable energy sources = Disaster.

On the grid currently, carefully monitored minute by minute to balance supply and demand, excess supply is burned off bc there is no efficient way to store it. Why is this so hard for the Green Frenzy folks to grasp?

Too far. Too fast. Not science based. Slow the F down. We will get there, but today is not the day.

Again will add, current generating capacity is not remotely close to being able to support a wholesale shift to EV's.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Gallipoli

Gallipoli

Graduate Assistant
Aug 20, 2017
3,486
1,846
113
The Doghouse
Storage is in its infancy. Weak storage technology based on unreliable energy sources = Disaster.

On the grid currently, carefully monitored minute by minute to balance supply and demand, excess supply is burned off bc there is no efficient way to store it. Why is this so hard for the Green Frenzy folks to grasp?

Too far. Too fast. Not science based. Slow the F down. We will get there, but today is not the day.
Correct. The free market will solve the problem. The green movement wants to destroy everything related to fossil fuels. Knowing this our enemies are fighting wars to control sources of oil and gas.
 

Gallipoli

Graduate Assistant
Aug 20, 2017
3,486
1,846
113
The Doghouse
We should get rid of the greatest carbon emitters...starting with John Kerry. My little Toyota emits about 1 pound of carbon a year.

"Climate czar, the Bay State’s own John Kerry, is a high-class polluter. Kerry’s private family jet emitted over 300 metric tons of carbon since Biden took office."

 

Gallipoli

Graduate Assistant
Aug 20, 2017
3,486
1,846
113
The Doghouse
Here's a good. The democratic operative, CEO Robert Blue, running Dominion Power has started a $9.3 Billion windmill farm off the coast of Virginia Beach. If it runs at capacity, it may provide power for 660,000 homes. The Democrats in the last administration mandated it. The rest of Virginia will have to pay for it. These idiots just blew $8B on the Atlantic Coast Pipeline.

"The company forecast that the wind farm will generate electricity in practice at 42% of its maximum capacity. Again it wants consumers on the hook if that target proves optimistic."

"What could go wrong? The commission says that “designs for various components of these turbines” have “yet to be finalized.” Because offshore wind at this scale is new to the U.S., “there is no developed supply chain,” which “could lead to construction delays and cost overruns.” What if it falls through for some reason? “Even if the Project is abandoned at the end of 2023,” the order says, “Dominion still estimates it would have prudently incurred approximately $3.7 billion of costs to be recovered from customers.”

So why approve the wind farm at all? Because the state Legislature mandated that such an offshore project “is in the public interest, and the Commission shall so find.” The commission’s order sounds nearly apologetic in saying that regulators are “keenly aware of the ongoing rise in gas prices, inflation, and other economic pressures,” but “this is a prescriptive statute.”

 
Last edited:

KE Spider

Team Manager
Mar 8, 2010
1,713
2,660
113
Good source for energy regulation info (don't always agree, but understand the issues and generally get the facts correct).


If interested in energy regulation, should be on your reading list for sure.
 

KE Spider

Team Manager
Mar 8, 2010
1,713
2,660
113
Should add Dominion has had a two turbine off shore pilot project up and running since 2020. They have learned much from this.

If they make the proposed and approved largest offshore wind farm in US work, it will be a bonanza. If they don't, the ratepayers, not the company pays. Hell of a deal. Heads I win. Tails you lose.
 

Gallipoli

Graduate Assistant
Aug 20, 2017
3,486
1,846
113
The Doghouse
This is from a report by the Manhattan Institute. The report is expected to be released next week.

" it costs less than $1 a barrel per month to store oil or the energy equivalent of natural gas. Storing coal is even cheaper. Thus, over the past century, engineers achieved the feat of building a nation-spanning group of electricity grids that powers nearly everything, anytime, while still consuming less than 3% of the GDP

Storing electricity itself—the output from solar/wind machines—remains extremely expensive despite the vaunted battery revolution. Lithium batteries, a Nobel-winning invention, are some 400% better than lead-acid batteries in terms of energy stored per unit of weight (which is critical for vehicles). And the costs for lithium batteries have declined more than 10-fold in the past two decades. Even so, it costs at least $30 to store the energy equivalent of one barrel of oil using lithium batteries. That alone explains why, regardless of mandates and subsidies, batteries aren’t a solution at grid scales for days, never mind weeks, of storage."

 

Latest posts